Semiotics of DNA. Logical Evidence for Intelligent Design.

reply to post by dragonridr

Your starting with a false hypothesis evolution wasnt designed to to explain away intelligent design. It was proven to explain the natural universe which is all science tries to do. If there was proof of intelligent design then that would be the leading scientific consensus. Science isnt about disproving anything and its up to anyone believing in intelligent design to prove there hypothesis. As you say its cute how you try to manipulate archaic beliefs to try to make them seem relevant. Its cute but incredibly naive may want to crack open a science book some day.

But thats what people end up trying to do(see: Dawkins and his minions). That's why it's cute.

It's cute because it's so stupid.

Also, you kinda just proved my point by dragging a completely irrelevant topic about God into the mix as if it's relevant. There is an ant-God agenda that is prevalent amongst those most interested in the theory and they use it as their perverbial "silver bullet". It's cute that atheists think that evolution has any merit when it comes to discussing the possibility of a creator; as they are completely independent subjects and they are certainly not mutually exclusive to the rational thinker.

BTW I love science. I'm just smart enough to not extrapolate that extremely limited scientific knowledge into realms where it doesn't belong; like a lot of people try and do with Evolution.

We have much yet to learn about origins, genetics, etc. No conclusions are on the table; and they probably won't be for some time...

I've spoken with many many atheists and they always fall into the same predictable box of thinking. They all cling to evolution like a child clings on to their favorite toy. Ridiculous.

sdb93awd
I've always struggled to reason why atheistic types of people used evolution as their "silver bullet"

It is obvious by your post that you don't understand the argument.

Realizing that "Science knows very little about the universe or existence" and accepting that what is known so far doesn't confirm or deny the existance of a creator is the perfect answer to the certainty with which religious people proclaim the existance of their god of choice.

The reason atheists sound the way they do is because the logical approach is to prove the existance of something and not its inexistence. I can't see the reason why someone would struggle with that.

reply to post by sdb93awd


I think your missing my point there is no conflict people who believe in evolution dont care about intelligent design its irrelevant. As for evolution itself wasnt meant to prove anything just explain how life adapts to its surroundings. So not sure how this is some kinda box as you describe sounds to me your not trying to think outside the box but trying to fit everything in to your box. What happens in threads like this is simple people who wish to believe in god attack science because its a threat to there beliefs. Now this is an assumption on there part but what happens is they try to warp science to prove a belief. Beliefs are hard to prove because they rely on faith. Science cant use faith to prove anything only observation and experiments. You imply by your statements science is wrong your just masking it by saying things like limited scientific knowledge.You do this like you have all the answers kind of conceited dont you think?

Then suddenly you make another assumption that if someone believes in evolution that are an atheist is this a prerequisite in your world? Just your comments alone show you have an agenda but science doesnt have an agenda. It simply tries to take observations to make sense of the universe around us. so as i said earlier since you appear to have an agenda who is in the box? Oh and just so you know im not an atheist i do believe in a god of sorts but this isnt the place for that discussion.

reply to post by sdb93awd


I love how father George Coyne (PhD) who was Director of Vatican Astronomy looks at people like you as uneducated fanatics willing to prove that Bible contains scientific work and takes it where you wish as literate, but then take other parts as metaphors...

Very interesting interview, I posted it before, but on different discussion... (was part of other clip, this one is much shorter - worth watching)

reply to post by daskakik

Realizing that "Science knows very little about the universe or existence" and accepting that what is known so far doesn't confirm or deny the existance of a creator is the perfect answer to the certainty with which religious people proclaim the existance of their god of choice.

Science has no part in the experiential belief of a person. That is proof enough to the individual and science has nothing to do with it.

The problem is when "scientists" jump in and try to start persuading people that there is no God when they are clearly independent areas of study.

The reason atheists sound the way they do is because the logical approach is to prove the existance of something and not its inexistence. I can't see the reason why someone would struggle with that.

Nobody cares that scientists are trying to understand the natural world. The problem arises when they make grand claims about something in a completely different arena.

That's what makes this so cute

reply to post by dragonridr

I think your missing my point there is no conflict people who believe in evolution dont care about intelligent design its irrelevant.

Could have fooled me. See: Dawkins and his minions

As for evolution itself wasnt meant to prove anything just explain how life adapts to its surroundings. So not sure how this is some kinda box as you describe sounds to me your not trying to think outside the box but trying to fit everything in to your box. What happens in threads like this is simple people who wish to believe in god attack science because its a threat to there beliefs.

The theory is not a threat at all. The threat comes from ignorant fools who proclaim that they've discovered enough to proclaim God improbable. See: Dawkins and his minions

You imply by your statements science is wrong your just masking it by saying things like limited scientific knowledge.You do this like you have all the answers kind of conceited dont you think?

I do not believe that science is wrong and I certainly don't claim to have the answers.

I simply made the observation that science knows relatively nothing about the universe/existence/genetics/quantum theories/spirituality/etc

Then suddenly you make another assumption that if someone believes in evolution that are an atheist

Never said that. I said "a lot" of "atheistic types" cling to evolutionary theory as a silver bullet to attack belief; which is true. See: Dawkins and his minions

Just your comments alone show you have an agenda but science doesnt have an agenda. It simply tries to take observations to make sense of the universe around us.

But atheists have an agenda; and they use science to try and advance it.

See: Dawkins and his minions

reply to post by SuperFrog

I love how father George Coyne (PhD) who was Director of Vatican Astronomy looks at people like you as uneducated fanatics willing to prove that Bible contains scientific work and takes it where you wish as literate, but then take other parts as metaphors...

Literature is always supposed to be read as literature.

Metaphors are inherent in certain types of literature.

The Bible is made up of various forms of literature.

Follow?

It's a sad day when humans are so bland and tasteless that they have to invent a god to make themselves feel worthwhile and meaningful. Like a master and servant relationship actually validates their existence somehow. I mean, we abolished slavery for a reason, right? There was a point to establishing independence from the English monarchy, wasn't there? So why are we protecting the right to enslave ourselves to the most arrogant self-serving egomaniac ever to grace the world of literature?


I don't get the point.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

So why are we protecting the right to enslave ourselves to the most arrogant self-serving egomaniac ever to grace the world of literature?

Because you're ignorant as to who He is.

He loves you and he wants the very best for you.

He's not here to be your punisher.

Additionally, religious freedom is something that people fought and died for. It would be a shame to NOT have that right to believe in a higher power.

I can't even fathom a life without hope.

reply to post by sdb93awd

He's not here to be your punisher.

Oh, right.

Additionally, religious freedom is something that people fought and died for. It would be a shame to NOT have that right to believe in a higher power.

Well, sure! But then you get people who believe they are worthless and cannot amount to anything by their own power. They need a higher power to believe they mean anything at all.

Like here:

I can't even fathom a life without hope.

Apparently, without a higher power, you have no hope. That's just...sad. You're a human being, not a slug on a salt rock, helpless and dying. You can make someone laugh, or smile, or curious. You can give them a thirst for life and knowledge. You can make someone angry, depressed, or unhappy. You could remind them the world is full of jerks. You can help or hurt people. You can make a difference. You have that power. You are not helpless. You can do or be anything you want to. You don't need to be saved from anything. If you need hope, then be that hope. Maybe you'll give someone else hope too.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Oh, right.

It's unnerving for me to see people so ignorant of the gospel of Jesus.

Well, sure! But then you get people who believe they are worthless and cannot amount to anything by their own power. They need a higher power to believe they mean anything at all.

What can a human ever amount to on their own? Fleeting success?

Apparently, without a higher power, you have no hope. That's just...sad. You're a human being, not a slug on a salt rock.

Exactly. Not much great hope anyways. Also, that "higher power" makes life all that much better while we're here. It's a sense of joy I wish I could convey to you through words.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

You can give them a thirst for life and knowledge. You can make someone angry, depressed, or unhappy. You could remind them the world is full of jerks. You can help or hurt people. You can make a difference. You have that power. You are not helpless. You can do or be anything you want to. You don't need to be saved from anything. If you need hope, then be that hope. Maybe you'll give someone else hope too.

So this is it for you huh? You just showed up here by dumb luck and you'll pass away to nothingness?

You don't have a soul?

reply to post by sdb93awd

So this is it for you huh? You just showed up here by dumb luck and you'll pass away to nothingness?

You don't have a soul?

I don't know. Nobody does. But that's not a very good reason to make up fairy tales so I feel better about my existence.

reply to post by sdb93awd


This conversation is becoming off-topic. I suggest you start a thread on it and get back to the subject, or just get back to the subject.

sdb93awd
Science has no part in the experiential belief of a person. That is proof enough to the individual and science has nothing to do with it.

It can have something to do with it if the person chooses this.

The problem is when "scientists" jump in and try to start persuading people that there is no God when they are clearly independent areas of study.

No, usually the scientist will say that there is no evidence that god exists. That is what you don't understand about the argument.

Religious people are usually the ones pushing their beliefs on others. A couple of examples of this, from you, in this very thread:

It's unnerving for me to see people so ignorant of the gospel of Jesus.

The theory is not a threat at all. The threat comes from ignorant fools who proclaim that they've discovered enough to proclaim God improbable. See: Dawkins and his minions

Again you take "We have not found proof of god" to mean "we have proof the he doesn't exist".

The problem arises when they make grand claims about something in a completely different arena.

Arena? What arena would this be?

That's what makes this so cute

Being condescending doesn't make you right.

reply to post by daskakik

It can have something to do with it if the person chooses this.

Why? How?

Religious people are usually the ones pushing their beliefs on others. A couple of examples of this, from you, in this very thread:

See: Dawkins and his minions

Again you take "We have not found proof of god" to mean "we have proof the he doesn't exist

See: Dawkins and his minions
- Dawkins is quoted as stating that he wants to destroy Christianity.

Arena? What arena would this be?

Spirituality/God

Being condescending doesn't make you right.

Being right makes me right. What have I said that isn't correct?

sdb93awd
Why? How?

Why would be personal and how would be how we choose anything else.

See: Dawkins and his minions

Why when I could just see you.

See: Dawkins and his minions
- Dawkins is quoted as stating that he wants to destroy Christianity.

Dawkins is not science and he is only one atheist. He and his minions may have come to a conlcusion based on science but then again, there are how many different christian denominations?

Spirituality/God

God isn't an arena. He is something that some people believe in and others don't. You can't even use a generic label because god doesn't mean the same thing to everyone that does believe in a creator.

Being right makes me right. What have I said that isn't correct?

If you have not seen it or are not willing to acknowledge it then you probably never will. Still no excuse for being smug.

reply to post by daskakik

Dawkins is not science and he is only one atheist. He and his minions may have come to a conlcusion based on science but then again, there are how many different christian denominations?

It's the conclusion that seems prevalent from reading these forums. Idiots fall for the idea that evolutionary theory has any bearing on a belief in intelligent design. It's a talking point......clearly

God isn't an arena. He is something that some people believe in and others don't. You can't even use a generic label because god doesn't mean the same thing to everyone that does believe in a creator.

God is in a separate arena from the study of evolutionary theory. They are independent and not mutually exclusive.

Both sides of this talking point fall in this trap constantly.

If you have not seen it or are not willing to acknowledge it then you propably never will. Still no excuse for being smug.

I'm not allowed to point out how silly people are?

I'm not making any grand claims here......all I'm saying is the truth of the matter:

God and evolutionary theory are not mutually exclusive; as popular thinking would have you believe


I mean, look at the title of this thread and the subsequent discussion.........it's insanity

reply to post by sdb93awd

It is more than obvious that you would rather deflect and call people names than address the points made.

Your gonna have to have at it on your own.

reply to post by sdb93awd

I'm not making any grand claims here......all I'm saying is the truth of the matter:

God and evolutionary theory are not mutually exclusive; as popular thinking would have you believe

Then let us talk facts here. What evidence do you have which conclusively and exclusively proves that evolution was in any way divinely inspired? Surely if evolution was some sort of divine magic trick, there would be animals whose biology defies the laws of physics? We'd be seeing unicorns and dragons and satyrs. So far, we have found no evidence to suggest such beings exist or have ever existed. So what evidence do you have that divine magical inspiration was at all involved?